• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Members Login

Oregon Forest Industries Council

  • About
    • Values
    • Members
    • Staff
  • News
    • Press Releases
    • Past Guest Opinions
  • Blog
  • Forest Policy
    • Private Forest Accord
    • Carbon Policy
    • Fire Suppression
      • Wildfire Funding
    • State Forests
    • Preserving Water Quality
    • Engineered Wood Products
    • Forest Taxation
    • Forestry Herbicides
  • Resources
    • Podcast
    • Forest Facts
    • Scholarship
    • Private forestland closures
    • Links
  • Grounded in Science

Water

Environmentalists And Timber Industry Reach Agreement On Forests, Avoiding Oregon Ballot Fights

February 10, 2020 By OFIC

By Dirk VanderHart and Tony Schick | OPB | Feb 10, 2020

** This story originally appeared on OPB.

What has looked for months like an epic looming battle over Oregon’s forests has been called off under a new deal reached by environmental groups and logging industry players.

In an agreement announced Monday, conservation-minded groups have agreed to abandon a series of ballot measures aimed at stepped-up protections for forest waters, and at limiting aerial spraying of pesticides, among other things.

At the same time, timber industry players are planning to ditch their own ballot measures – filed in response to the environmental proposals – that would require landowners be compensated when state regulations curbed their ability to log, and alter the makeup of a state board that controls forest management policies.

The deal could result in the most significant changes to Oregon’s forest practices since the adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan in the 1990s.

“Healthy forests and a vibrant forestry industry are not mutually exclusive, and Oregonians need both for prosperous and sustainable communities,” Oregon Gov. Kate Brown said.

“The Cooperating Parties acknowledge that they have an incentive to reach a compromise on historically difficult issues without risking adverse outcomes in an election,” reads a memorandum of understanding signed by 26 groups – 13 on either side of the issue. The list includes environmental activists such as Oregon Wild, the Audubon Society of Portland, and the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, along with large timber outfits such as Stimson Lumber, Roseburg Forest Products and Weyerhaeuser.

Speaking on behalf of the forest industry coalition, Greg Miller, a former Weyerhaeuser spokesman, said the agreement would increase environmental benefits and provide certainty for the business community.

“This is the time, this is the historic moment where we can drive benefit for all Oregonians,” Miller said.

Another company signing the deal, Roseburg Forest Products, stood by its current practices and said the agreement was about setting aside differences.

“While we are confident in our current science-based forest practices, we recognize the need for a direct conversation about forest management,” spokeswoman Rebecca Taylor said. “The cooperative agreement announced today charts a path to provide greater assurances for a strong and vibrant industry and a healthy environment.”

Bob Van Dyk of the Wild Salmon Center, speaking on behalf of the environmental coalition, said the new agreement could bring Oregon up to date with environmental protections already adopted by its neighbors. Habitat conservation plans are already in place throughout forests, with the same ecology and many of the same landowners, throughout Washington state.

Oregon Wild Executive Director Sean Stevens, also a signer of the agreement, said that depends on the progress made over the next two years.

“This agreement is only a first step in a longer journey,” Stevens said. “Conservation of Oregon’s forests, and communities that live around them and rely upon them, is not guaranteed at the end of this process.”THANKS TO OUR SPONSOR:Become a Sponsor

Rather than engaging in an expensive and uncertain war to win over voters, both sides have agreed to participate in a mediated process of up to 18 months, according to the memo. The goal: to arrive at a federally approved “habitat conservation plan” for how private forests should be managed with an eye toward ensuring protection of vulnerable species and water resources.

In the meantime, timber industry players have agreed to support a bill in this year’s legislative session that would increase notification requirements for aerial pesticide spraying on private timber land, and increase buffers for such spraying around schools, homes and streams.

Aerial spraying has been a controversial practice for decades. It is a linchpin of industrial-scale forestry, as many timber owners consider spraying in the early years after a clear cut the most effective way to kill unwanted plants and regenerate a new crop of Douglas fir seedlings. It is also the subject of complaints from neighbors and environmental groups about potential drift or runoff into water. Multiple communities in Oregon’s coast range have claimed they were sickened by wayward pesticides meant to kill unwanted plants on private tree plantations.

The timber industry successfully fought additional no-spray buffers and requirements for notifying neighbors of aerial spraying during previous legislative sessions, but the industry also had indications those issues would be more vulnerable on the ballot than in the hands of lawmakers.

Voters in Lincoln County approved a ban on aerial spraying in 2016, which was later overturned in court. That was despite industry groups and other opponents of the ban outspending supporters $475,000 to $21,600.

Beyond that, the industry’s own polling also has shown that voters in coastal counties have widespread support for logging but are nonetheless “very susceptible to the idea of banning aerial pesticides,” according to a memo obtained by OPB and The Oregonian/Oregonlive through Oregon’s public records law.

The 2018 memo from the Oregon Forest & Industries Council, which represents large timber companies and many of the signatories to today’s agreement, outlined poll results from 500 likely voters in coastal Oregon.

The polling showed that, when given context about why companies use pesticides, between 55-57% of likely voters polled thought aerial spraying was “unnecessary” or “bad” and risked the spread of harmful chemicals through air and water. About a third of those polled considered the practice “necessary” or “good” for growing mature forests and supporting an important industry.

“Underlining the difficulty of this conversation,” the memo states, “voters who have immediate family employed in the timber industry or are employed themselves oppose aerial pesticides at the same rate as voters overall.”

The newly-announced deal also includes restrictions on stream-side logging in southern Oregon’s Siskiyou region, rules meant to protect fish. The region was exempted from those logging buffers, which are in place throughout the rest of the state’s coastal forests.

The mutual disarmament avoids what looked like a potentially bruising ballot fight later this year. And according to some players in the agreement, it creates a path by which Oregon could push forward protective policies long sought by environmental groups, while offering more certainty to property owners about how they can manage their land.

The agreement, brokered by the governor’s office, came together in four meetings held over the course of just two weeks, according to one participant.

While the deal calls for both sides to largely drop ballot proposals, it explicitly allows a legal fight over three of those proposals to continue.

The initiative petitions, filed with backing from the group Oregon Wild, all sought to step up protections against spraying and logging near forest waters and other sensitive areas. But all three were rejected by Secretary of State Bev Clarno, who found they were unconstitutionally overbroad.

Petitioners have challenged that opinion, and the case is currently before the Oregon Court of Appeals. The memorandum indicates the group intends to see the case “to final resolution.”

Filed Under: News Tagged With: Herbicides, Water

Timber companies, environmentalists sign ‘historic’ pact on Oregon forest management

February 10, 2020 By OFIC

By Associated Press | Feb 10, 2020

**This story originally appeared on KVAL.

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Environmental groups and timber companies in Oregon, which have clashed for decades, on Monday unveiled a road map for overhauling forest practice regulations, a step that Gov. Kate Brown called “historic.”

The agreement came after the two sides quietly held meetings, facilitated by the governor’s office, in Salem and Portland over the last month to try to find common ground, instead of filing competing initiative petitions and lawsuits.

“I walked in on the first meeting, and I knew folks were serious when the timber industry folks had their shirt sleeves rolled up and enviros were in suits and ties,” Brown said at a news conference.Gov. Brown announces ‘historic’ agreement on Oregon forest management

The meetings resulted in leaders of around a dozen environmental groups, including Oregon Wild, the Audubon Society of Portland and Cascadia Wildlands, and of a dozen timber companies, including Weyerhaeuser, one of the largest forest products companies in the world, and Lone Rock of Roseburg, Oregon, signing a memorandum of understanding.

Oregon Strategy MOU (Final Executed) by Sinclair Broadcast Group – Eugene on Scribd

Oregon leads the nation in wood-products manufacturing, according to industry experts, even though environmental groups and the timber industry have been backing rival initiative petitions that seek to put measures on the ballot. They have also backed rival legislation and filed lawsuits.

Under the new agreement, both sides would complete a stand-down from pursuing changes through the initiative process, related legal actions, and legislative and regulatory proceedings.

The agreement represents a departure from 20 years of tension, said Bob Van Dyk, Oregon and California policy director for the Wild Salmon Center. He appeared with Brown at the news conference.Bob Van Dyk from environmental coalition

That animosity “results in a lack of trust, gridlock on forest policy and a growing public demand for broader reform,” Van Dyk said. “Today we’re starting a new approach … It’s a path of collaboration toward stronger conservation measures and more certainty for the timber industry.”

Greg Miller, a long-time timber industry executive and representative of the coalition of forest companies, told reporters he hopes the memorandum of understanding “sets Oregon up for the most comprehensive, forward-thinking forest policy in the nation.”

Both sides underscored that while it is a big moment, it is only a first step.

“Conservation of Oregon’s forests, and communities that live around them and rely upon them, is not guaranteed at the end of this process. It will require significant work over the next two years to modernize forest rules,” said Sean Stevens, executive director of Oregon Wild.

Under the agreement, both sides would support immediate legislation to establish helicopter pesticide application buffers, or no-direct application zones, around inhabited dwellings and schools and around streams.

Nik Blosser, Brown’s chief of staff, described in a telephone interview how the two sides came together. The seed was planted when a group of timber company CEOs met with Brown in January and asked her if she could broker a deal on all the litigation and initiative petitions.

Blosser then contacted the environmentalists, thinking that this was a long-shot effort.

“I called them and said, ‘Are you interested in sitting down and having this conversation?’ And they said, ‘Well, we’re not sure how serious they really are. And I said, ‘Well, I think they’re pretty serious, so why don’t we do one meeting and give it a try?,” Blosser recalled.

There wound up being four meetings, with five people representing each side, Blosser said. Everyone was fully engaged.

“Nobody looked at their phones, which is kind of remarkable in a meeting nowadays. Everyone was listening and everyone was acknowledging the other person talking and that what they said was sincere,” Blosser said.

The memorandum they agreed to sets up a process for overhauling the Oregon Forest Practices Act — a set of laws enacted in 1971 that made Oregon the first state to implement a comprehensive set of laws governing forest practices. It contains provisions for activities such as how timber harvests happen on private forest lands, providing riparian buffers along rivers and streams and the replanting of trees.

Both sides agreed the plan needs to be science-based, though debate is expected on what the science says, Blosser said. The aim is to arrive at a habitat conservation plan, or HCP — basically a certification from federal agencies that says the plan is consistent with the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act and is good for both species recovery while allowing maximum timber harvests agreed to in the HCP, Blosser said.

The memorandum calls for the final plan to be developed so that legislation implementing the agreements will be enacted on or before the February 2022 Legislative session.

“This agreement proves that we can build a better future for Oregonians if we work together with a willingness to compromise,” Brown said. “Healthy forests and a vibrant forestry industry are not mutually exclusive.”

A collaborative process called Forests & Fish in Washington State led to a similar outcome, with over 60,000 stream miles and 9.3 million acres of Washington forests being protected by an HCP, according to Brown’s office.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: Herbicides, Water

Governor Kate Brown Brokers Unprecedented Agreement Between Timber and Environmental Groups

February 10, 2020 By OFIC

By Governor Kate Brow’s Office | Feb 10, 2020

**This press release originally appeared on the Governor’s website. See that release here.

The memorandum of understanding will chart a new path for science-based forest management in Oregon

Salem, OR—Governor Kate Brown today announced a historic agreement between representatives from the state’s forest industry and major environmental groups to chart a collaborative course toward meaningful, science-based forest management in Oregon. The agreement takes a significant step toward a new era of cooperation, leaving behind the conflicts of the past.

“This pact proves that when we work together with a willingness to compromise, we can create a better future in Oregon,” said Governor Brown. “Oregonians want healthy forests and fish, a vibrant forest sector, and prosperous rural communities. These are not mutually exclusive goals. The conversations that brought forth this agreement, coupled with sound science, will bring certainty for everyone involved while protecting Oregon’s environment and endangered species.”

The signed memorandum of understanding (MOU) addresses three key issues. It will:

• Drive a process for Oregon to update its timber practices: For the first time, Oregon will strive for the endorsement of federal wildlife agencies, signifying that the state’s forest practices are protective of threatened and endangered species, including Oregon’s iconic salmon. Through this process, the state will seek a Habitat Conservation Plan, allowing Oregonians to continue their long tradition of working in the woods while honoring natural habitats.

• Support passage of new legislation for the 2020 session on aerial spraying of pesticides: A state-of-the-art system will build confidence with forest neighbors, who will be eligible to receive real-time notification that aerial spraying will occur. This first of its kind system will expand protected spray buffers around drinking water, homes, and schools.

• Expand forest stream buffers in the Rogue-Siskiyou region: New legislation will also expand forest stream buffers along salmon, steelhead, and bull trout streams, aligning forest practices in the area with those of the rest of western Oregon.
With this MOU, both sides have agreed that all forestry-related initiative petitions and related litigation will be dropped after the passage of the legislation this session.

“This MOU is shared recognition of the diverse benefits Oregon’s forests provide, and the need for more meaningful dialogue around forest issues across the state,” said Greg Miller, long-time timber industry executive and representative of the coalition of forest companies. “Oregon is one of the best places in the world to grow and harvest trees sustainably; we lead the nation in wood products manufacturing, and we are proud of our record of environmental stewardship.”

“Now as we move forward into a new era of cooperation and transparency, forest policy should continue to rely on the best available science,” said Miller. “The 60,000 Oregon families who work in the forest sector — indeed all Oregonians — expect that level of rigor and thoughtfulness when it comes to forest management. With this MOU, we are hopeful that we have found a pathway forward that meets those expectations and sets Oregon up for the most comprehensive, forward-thinking forest policy in the nation.”

“Today’s agreement is a critical step toward modernizing Oregon’s forest rules,” said Bob Van Dyk, Oregon policy director at the Wild Salmon Center. “Oregonians are rightfully proud of our forests and what they provide, including some of the best salmon runs in the Lower 48 and drinking water for most of the state. It’s our collective duty to make sure that a healthy timber industry doesn’t come at the expense of fish, wildlife, and public health.”

“This agreement is a genuine show of good faith from both sides,” said Van Dyk. “There’s still much work to be done for our communities and the healthy environment on which we all depend. There is a long road ahead, but this agreement is a big first step in the right direction.”

The complete MOU can be viewed here.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: Herbicides, Water

Protecting Oregon’s Best Source Of Clean Water

July 5, 2017 By OFIC

When foresters get ready to harvest timber out of the woods, there’s a lot of work done before the logging crew goes in, including marking areas of trees not to cut. One of those areas is called a Riparian Management Area (RMA), which is a buffer of trees left standing next to a stream to protect water quality. The Oregon Forest Practices Act dictates how wide those buffers should be, depending on the size of the stream and if it contains sensitive species that require extra protection. This month, new rules go into effect requiring bigger buffers around cold water streams supporting salmon, steelhead or bull trout.

OFIC went out into the woods with a team of two professional foresters, three interns, and a cadre of furry four-legged tag-alongs to measure and mark an RMA on a large fish-bearing stream in a unit of forestland about to be harvested in the Oregon north coast range.

In order to get to the stream, the team hiked into the forest on foot.

We head out into the woods armed with colored tape and tools for measuring the RMA (and me hauling loads of camera gear).

Don’t be fooled by the word “hiking.” This was not an average weekend stroll through manicured trails in a state park. Oregon’s coastal forestland is remote, rough terrain, with steep slopes and dense underbrush. These are 40 to 60-year-old stands of trees that have had little disturbance for decades. I was warned to make sure all my camera gear was tied to my body (I still lost my lens cap) and to take off my wedding ring so I didn’t get my hand snagged on brush. We went early in the morning before the yellow jackets came out, and the dogs were there for more than just companionship. I’m pretty fit, but that day proved to be some of the hardest “hiking” I’ve ever done.

In order to get down to the large stream, we tracked a small, non-fish bearing tributary. While walking in the “stream” wasn’t easy (I had mud over the tops of my hiking boots within 10 minutes), it was certainly easier than trying to stay upright on the steep slope of forestland on either side of the stream. As we went, we tied brightly colored tape on brush every few feet to mark the stream for the logging crew.

Paul tries to assess if it’s better to climb over those downed logs or walk around. I voted for walk around.

We made slow, humid progress climbing (and falling, in my case) over logs. I used the excuse of taking photos to stop for a breather. I’m sure the crew would have been twice as fast without me.

I had to keep my camera tucked in my vest to prevent it from banging into stuff so it got pretty fogged up cause I was sweating all over the place, but if you look closely you can see how the pink ribbon marks the stream for the logging crew.

Eventually, the forest opened up and the tributary lead us to our target: the large stream. I was celebrating the fact that I wouldn’t have to scramble through a wet stream anymore. Surely this part would be easier, right?

Ah, finally, I can actually see where I’m going.

The Oregon Forest Practices Act requires a 100-foot buffer of trees around large fish-bearing streams. That means the team had to measure a 100-foot distance from the edge of the stream and mark that edge (by tying tape on trees) along the whole length of the stream in the unit to be harvested so the logging crew would know to stay out of that buffer. In order to measure 100 feet, Paul climbed up the slope next to the stream and Luke and the crew stood at the edge of the stream. Using a survey grade laser range finder, Paul measured 100 feet by pointing the laser at a reflective sign Luke held at the edge of the stream.

Sometimes it was a clear shot. Other times, stuff was in the way and it took a lot of yelling back and forth to make sure Luke and Paul could determine how far apart they were. I make a good college try of walking along with Paul on the hillside, but there were times when the forest floor vegetation and decaying debris was so dense I just had to step on something and trust that I wouldn’t fall through. Of course I did fall through plenty of times. In fact, I couldn’t wear a skirt to work for two weeks because my legs were so bruised and scratched. At one point, Paul directed me to walk a different route than him because he said it would be “easier” for me to walk through the power line corridor. There are no pictures of that part because I was too busy pushing my way through a tangle of blackberry vines taller than I am and frantically hoping I wasn’t lost. When I finally found Paul he swore he wasn’t trying to ditch me, but I still can’t be sure.

Most entertaining was watching Luke perform stream-side acrobatics to get the reflector in a good spot.

Luke spent lots of time in uncomfortable looking stretches trying to put the reflective sign in a spot where Paul could “see” it with the laser. When it was determined they were 100 feet apart, Paul marked the edge of the buffer with tape and moved on down the stream.

This went on for a long time, slowly marking the edge of the buffer by tying tape every few trees.

The interns and I ate a lot of huckleberries growing alongside the stream while we waited for Paul and Luke to figure out how far apart they were.

As he marked the buffer, Paul was also counting mandated “leave trees,” and he occasionally stopped to write down in a notebook how many he’d counted. The Oregon Forest Practices Act requires foresters leave two standing live trees and two downed trees per acre for wildlife habitat. It also requires snags, which are standing dead trees that have had their tops broken off for wildlife, like woodpeckers.

We also stopped to look for evidence of black bears, identified a number of lobster mushrooms, and removed slugs from Luke’s hard hat. All in all, a pretty good time and a heck of a workout. Eventually, after four or five hours Luke and Paul took pity on me and hiked us all back out, vowing that they would come back and finish marking the rest of the buffer another day.

Not pictured are Paul, Luke and I devouring some much deserved fish and chips after a day of hard work in the woods.

Here’s a video flavor of what it was like in real life!

 

 

Filed Under: Blog, Views Tagged With: Water

Every Day is Arbor Day For Oregon Foresters

April 27, 2016 By OFIC

On the last Friday of April, people all around the country take a moment to recognize the importance of planting trees. While this official Arbor Day only comes around once a year, Oregon foresters recognize the importance of planting trees every day. More than 40 million tree seedlings are planted in Oregon’s forests each year to reforest areas that have been harvested, burned by wildfire, or are otherwise understocked, thereby renewing a sustainable source of locally grown timber and ensuring that each acre of forest land is productively growing beautiful, healthy, Oregon trees.

Reforestation is serious business, not only because Oregon’s strict forest practices laws require it, but also because ensuring those seedlings get a good start sets the stage in that young forest for the next 45 to 60 years. For forest landowners, it’s one of very few opportunities to help steer how this land performs for decades to come.

tree planting-1

Tree planting crews unpack Douglas-fir and Hemlock tree seedlings and load them into carrying bags on Hampton’s Big Creek Tree Farm.

Tree planting in Oregon typically gets underway around February when trees are still in winter dormancy and the hard freezes are over, but the process actually starts two years before that when the seeds started growing in the nursery. Foresters plant tree seedlings (or two-year-old baby trees) even though they cost almost ten times as much as the seeds. Starting the seeds in a nursery dramatically increases the likelihood that the seedlings will survive and reestablish the forest, so it’s worth the extra cost. Douglas-fir seedlings presently cost about 36 to 38 cents each, or about $380 for 1,000. Hemlock, Western Red Cedar, Grand Fir and Noble Fir costs more, at about $420 for 1,000. Foresters make individual decisions based on many factors (elevation, health, soil condition, etc.) about which species and how many trees to plant in a given area, but at roughly 400 trees per acre, landowners are paying about $150 per acre for seedlings alone.  The average area being reforested in Oregon is about 50 acres, thus bringing the cost of seedlings for each unit to about $7,500. That number increases substantially as labor, transportation and storage costs are factored in.

Because those seedlings are so precious, considerable care is taken when transporting them from the nursery to the ground. Seedlings are transported in specially lined paper bags or boxes of about 120 in a covered, well ventilated vehicle, and they aren’t stacked too high. In order to prevent damage from drying out, it’s important that the seedlings stay out of direct sunlight and remain in a cool environment. Foresters are careful not to open the bags until right before planting to keep the seedlings in the best possible condition while they’re out of the ground.

tree planting-7

Forest manager Beth Fitch verifies proper planting technique, looking for straight roots and correct depth.

When the time comes to put the seedlings in the ground, forest managers hire crews of tree planters who have been trained in the proper technique. It’s not as easy as just sticking the tree in the soil and hoping for the best – the roots need to be straight, the depth and spacing needs to be just right, and the seedlings need to be planted in soil that will provide the nutrients they need, not the remnants of a decomposing stump or other plant material (called duff.) To ensure the seedlings are planted properly, forest managers routinely walk behind the crew and double check their work by counting the number of planted trees in a measured radius and digging up trees to look for proper planting.

tree planting-4

Tree planting crews work quickly, alternating between planting Douglas-fir and Hemlock seedlings at Hampton’s Big Creek Tree Farm.

The crew is paid by the number of trees they plant (with mechanisms in place to guarantee quality), which is about 1,200 trees per worker per day.  At about ten workers per crew, the team plants roughly 12,000 seedlings in a day.  Each bag carries about 155 seedlings and as long as the weather stays cool enough throughout the day, the crew refills their bags about seven times in a shift. Staggering each other by about ten feet, the crew follows the lead planter and puts a seedling in the ground around every three steps. It’s quick and impressive work – the average person might have to jog to keep up.

tree planting-8

This two-year-old Douglas-fir seedling will establish and spend the next 45-60 years providing clean air, water and wildlife habitat near the Oregon coast.

The end result is a young forest that will provide wildlife habitat and clean water and air for decades. When they reach maturity they’ll be harvested to create lumber for houses or pulp for paper, and then the re-planting cycle starts all over again.  The Oregon Forest Practices Act requires that harvested areas are not just replanted, but that those trees are evenly distributed and free from competing vegetation within six years. This high standard creates a sustainable source of locally-grown timber, and favors management styles that implement clear-cuts followed by even-aged plantations, mimicking the natural cycle of these forest ecosystems. Douglas-fir trees, which are native to the Pacific Northwest and are one of the most important conifers to softwood lumber production in the United States, require abundant sunlight and naturally regenerate following disturbances such as fire, and windstorms. Reforestation after harvest creates ideal growing conditions for sun-loving species like the Douglas-fir and enhances the forest’s ability to sequester carbon as younger and faster growing forests have higher annual sequestration rates.

Filed Under: Views Tagged With: Water

Refuting the CZARA Disapproval

March 31, 2016 By OFIC

Daily Quotes (1)On March 9, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Oregon’s Natural Resources Policy Director, sent a letter to Richard Whitman formally announcing that the agencies will not release the withheld portion of the 2015 grant funding ($1.2 million) intended for coastal communities and water quality improvement and nonpoint source pollution projects, and that they will continue to withhold funds until Oregon’s coastal nonpoint pollution control program under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) is approved.  This makes Oregon the only state of 33 to be disapproved for funding in spite of the fact that Oregon has some of the strictest forest protection laws in the country and the Board of Forestry is currently in rulemaking to expand riparian protection for small and medium fish-bearing streams in western Oregon.

The coastal nonpoint pollution control program was established in 1990 and is jointly administered by NOAA and EPA. The program is designed to help protect and restore coastal waters in coastal states and territories by assisting states in establishing management programs that protect such waters from nonpoint source pollution. Once a state has an approved program, the federal agencies distribute grant funding to support implementation of that program.

In 1998 Oregon was granted conditional approval, a status initially given to all 33 states and territories that have submitted coastal nonpoint pollution control programs. Conditional approvals are intended primarily to provide states and territories additional time to address issues NOAA and the EPA identify as needing further progress before they will fully approve the program. Today, nearly one-third of those states continue to have conditional approvals, many of which have considerably less restrictive forest management laws than Oregon.

In 2009, the Northwest Environmental Advocates, an environmental group based in Portland and led by Nina Bell, filed the only lawsuit in the country against the EPA and NOAA over the conditional status of a state’s program. As a result of the settlement agreement from that case, the EPA and NOAA agreed to either approve or disapprove Oregon’s program.

Arbitrary and CapriciousIn January 2015, the EPA and NOAA formally disapproved Oregon’s coastal nonpoint pollution control program.  The agencies pointed exclusively to forestry, focusing on protection of non-fish bearing streams, management of forest roads, landslides, and the application of herbicides around streams.  Interestingly, the agencies gave a pass to onsite sewage disposal systems for implementing voluntary measures (something they are unwilling to accept in the context of forestry) and chose not to address “concerns with the State’s agriculture program.”

While the disapproval was supposed to trigger an immediate one-third decrease in nonpoint source grant funding, Oregon continued to negotiate with the agencies in an effort to secure the 2015 funding, emphasizing Oregon’s strict forest protection laws which are based in science and adaptive to growing scientific knowledge. In February 2016, Richard Whitman sent a short letter to the agencies indicating, again, that Oregon believes its program is fully approvable.  With remarkable efficiency for federal agencies, the EPA and NOAA replied jointly on March 9, 2016 that they would not release the withheld portion of the 2015 funding.

The position of the federal agencies is perplexing.  Their objective seems to be the implementation of prescriptive regulations rather than achieving positive environmental outcomes based on rigorous science.  Oregon has a sound and thorough defense of its regulation and outcomes around all issues raised by the EPA and NOAA – a defense that is backed by extensive research and monitoring. To this end, Oregon is already addressing the issues raised by the federal agencies:

Riparian protection: The Oregon Forest Practices Act (FPA) is adaptive and rules have been modified with the inpDaily Quotes (3)ut of research. Over the years, the FPA has been changed to require the retention of trees and vegetation during harvest which must be left along fish streams as a buffer for shade and large wood recruitment. Last November, the Board of Forestry voted to adopt new steam protection rules and is currently in rulemaking to expand riparian protection for small and medium streams in western Oregon where salmon, steelhead, or bull trout are present. Oregon has also conducted three separate paired watershed studies to measure the harvest effect on conditions in streams that have shown no measureable downstream effect on stream temperatures.

Legacy forest roads: Oregon’s forest practice rules are some of the most rigorous in the nation.  From new road construction, to maintenance, to water diversions, to culvert placement, to road upgrades; the Oregon FPA is a rigorous body of laws that ensure forest roads are not compromising water quality.  Additionally, landowners, through The Oregon Plan, have spent over $96 million through 2011 making improvements to outdated culverts and stream-side care to help protect water quality and improve fish habitat. Many of these improvements divert water from road surfaces and protect roads from degradation.

Landslide-prone areas: The state has extensive research in western Oregon as it applies to age of tree stands, slope steepness, soil density and other factors.  Upon its review of existing information and additional research, the state found that the federal agencies’ Daily Quotes (2)concerns were unfounded. The FPA already dictates a rigorous process for both screening areas of potential instability and adding protective measures in areas that are deemed as having higher landslide risk.

Aerial application of pesticides: Oregon relies on regulations set by the Oregon Department of Agriculture and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for protection of streams during pesticide applications. In addition to the strength of the herbicide regulations is the fact that no scientific evidence exists that applications impair water quality.  In fact, just the opposite is true.  According to the Oregon Water Quality Index, forestland sites have the highest water quality of all sites statewide, including range, agricultural and urban areas.  And every extensive study of western watersheds conducted by state or municipal agencies has found no evidence that herbicides exist at a level harmful to public health.  Applying more prescriptive buffers is simply a solution in search of a problem. 

The federal agencies are in error, and their continued focus on forestry is puzzling.  Through all of this, they have failed to produce any evidence that Oregon forest practices are actually contributing to exceedances of water quality standards.  It’s akin to focusing the bulk of our law enforcement resources in our lowest crime neighborhoods.  Surely, there are better ways to allocate precious resources. The state shouldn’t throw away the foundation of its forest management for the minimal grant funding federal agencies are offering. Science is at the center of Oregon’s forest management; it is the foundation of policies that protect our water and wildlife, while providing for the sustainable use of natural resources.

Filed Under: Views Tagged With: Water

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2

Footer

Oregon Forests Forever

We all want to see Oregon thrive. When opposing sides work together, it helps solve some of the most pressing issues facing Oregonians today.

oregonforestsforever.com
  • About
    • Values
    • Members
  • News & Views
    • News
    • Press Releases
  • Forest Policy
    • Private Forest Accord
    • Carbon policy
    • Preserving Water Quality
    • Engineered Wood Products
    • Fire Suppression
    • Forestry Herbicides
    • Forest Taxation
  • Resources
    • Forest Facts
    • Private Forestland Closures
    • Links
  • Contact
  • Oregon Forest & Industries Council   |   © 2004-2025 All rights reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
Menu
  • Member Login
  • Home
  • About
    • Values
    • Members
    • Our Staff
  • News & Views
    • News
    • Press
    • Views
  • Forest Policy
    • Private Forest Accord
    • Preserving Water Quality
    • State Forests
    • Forestry Herbicides
    • Forest Taxation
    • Engineered Wood Products
    • Fire Suppression
    • Wildfire Funding
  • Resources
    • Private Forestland Closures
    • Forest Facts
    • Links
  • Contact
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Grounded in Science